Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-03-15 Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 15, 1977 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:40 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Chairman Tyson. Other members present were Messrs. Troy Fuller, Neal Adams, Robert Johnson, Sam Munir, and Mrs. Helen Lightbody. (Absent was Mr. Dick Wells.) Also present were Director of Public Works Jack Bullard and Recording Secretary Kay Bullard. VISITORS Visitors in attendance were Mrs. Willie Mae McCormick, Messrs. Walter A. Elliott and W. G. Ragley, and Mr. and Mrs. Paul Thomes. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mr. Johnson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Adams made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting dated March 1 , 1977, as written. Mr. Fuller seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Fuller, Adams, Tyson, Johnson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. CONSIDER PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATTING OF OAKWOOD ACRES ESTATES (PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF NORTH MAIN AND NORTH OF HARWOOD ROAD) Mr. WalterE' 1iott stated that he is with the firm of Elliott and Hughes, Inc. , located at 1004 West Euless Blvd. , Euless, Texas, and is representing the developers of Oakwood Acres Estates. 4 (Page Two, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, March 15, 1977.) Mr. Elliott stated that approximately two years ago the zoning was approved by the Commission, and plans were made for development. However, with the failing economy, work was never begun. Now, since the economy has improved, they are ready to begin development of Phase I . Phase I is outlined on the preliminary and final plat of Oakwood Acres Estates. It includes thirteen plus acres of apartment, five lots for residential homes. Possibly all of Block 2 and Block 6 will be developed into homes. There is a letter written by Mr. John Lynch, Assistant City Manager, recommending several items concerning Oakwood Acres Estates. A copy of this letter is attached to these minutes. Mr. Elliott discussed item number one of Mr. Lynch ' s letter concerning the Arco Pipeline Easement. Crossing Blocks one and two of the plat is the Arco Pipeline. On Tract 9, this has been limited to a 33 foot easement. On the lots north of Ash Lane, the easement is undefined. It is also undefined on Tract 10. Arco officials have verbally stated to Mr. Elliott that they will limit the easement to fifty feet. They will change the thirty-three foot easement, making the easement fifty feet, all the way across the plat. Mr. Elliott presented a letter to the Commission written to Arco requesting the easement limitations. A copy of that letter is attached to these minutes. Mr. Elliott stated that Arco officials have verbally assured him that they will have a reply within two to three weeks. Arco' s normal procedure is to have thirty-five feet on the west side of the line and fifteen feet on the east side of the line to permit maintenance of the pipeline. Mr. Johnson asked what would happen if the pipeline ruptured when a house was built on top of the pipeline. Mr. Elliott assured him that no house could be built on top of the pipeline. The purpose of the easement was to insure this. On several of the lots, the homes will be set back so that they will not be on the pipeline easement. Arco maintains the right to make repairs. No permanent structure can be built on the pipeline easement. Mr. Johnson inquired if the homeowner is made aware of the pipeline easement. Mr. Elliott stated that he will be made aware of the easement. Mr. Adams stated that the homeowner' s deed will be subject to any easements of record. (Page Three, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, March 15, 1977) Mr. Elliott discussed item number two of Mr. Lynch ' s letter concerning alleyways. The alley was planned so the homeowners will not have to back out onto Main Street, a designated thor- oughfare. It was suggested that there should be an ingress-egress easement to the rear of the lots. Mr. Ellictt' s firm concluded this to mean an alley should be built, dedicated to the City. The ordinance states that a designated alley must be twenty feet wide and paved the full width. Mr. Elliott requested that the alley designation be changed to a private ingress-egress easement to serve lots two through ten, paved twelve feet wide. He feels that twelve feet is wide enough to allow two-way traffic. A car can ease into a neighbor' s drive for passing, or the easement could be one-way. The throat of the drive is eighteen feet wide at the street to allow for easy turning at the corner. Mr. Adams asked if it would be twelve feet wide, paved, curbed and guttered. Mr. Elliott stated that it would not be curbed and guttered, but it will be concrete, twelve feet wide and six inches thick. Mr. Adams asked if there would be any access to this easement from the apartment area. Mr. Elliott assured him there would not be. There would be a three-foot retaining wall , with a six foot fence on top of it between the apartments and the easement. Mr. Johnson asked if any other type, of screening such as an earthen mound had been considered. Mr. Elliott stated that there was not enough room for a mound. The zoning plans designated that a masonry or a concrete wall be used. Mr. Adams asked if the maintenance responsibility of the private easement would be with the homeowner. Mr. Elliott stated that it would. Mr. Fuller asked if fire protection would be on Main Street. Mr. Elliott stated that it would. Garbage pick up would also be on Main Street. Water meters will also be located along Main Street. Mr. Adams inquired if Mr. Elliott would object to the easement being one way. Mr. Elliott stated he would not. Mr. Bullard made reference to Mr. Lynch ' s letter suggesting two way traffic be allowed. (Page Four, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, March 15, 1977) Chairman Tyson stated he was concerned with deterioration of the alley if the City is not responsible for it. He wondered if a private ingress-egress easement would have to be built to cer- tain specifications. Mr. Bullard stated that there are no such specifications, but they could require that there be engineer-approved specifications by the City Engineer. Also, they would request a perpetual maintenance agreement recorded on the plat for the private ingress-egress easement so the City would have grounds to make the homeowner keep up the area. Mr. Johnson stated that he was con- cerned that twelve feet is not wide enough for the homeowner' s use. He is familiar with a similar situation in Dallas where the paved area is the minimum allowed. Fences are built on the edge of the pavement. People have wrecks in the area, and he is concerned the same situation could happen here. Mr. Elliott pointed out that the situation in Dallas is much narrower in width, and the extra feet allowed here will make a great difference. Mr. Johnson asked what would happen if the homeowners do not want their garbage picked up along Main Street. Most people have a tendency to carry their garbage to the rear. Mr. Bullard stated that he thought the City could refuse garbage pick-up in the rear. He stated the City Staff would prefer it being a private ingress-egress easement instead of a dedicated alley. The homeowner would then be responsible for keeping the area clean and free of garbage and maintenance upkeep. Mr. Johnson stated he does not think the individual will realize the responsibility involved in the upkeep when he buys the home. Mr. Elliott stated the cost of repaving the whole area would not be that great, and the concrete surface should last a number of years. Mr. Bullard stated the people will keep it cleaner if they know it is their own responsibility to do so. If the City is responsible, they might dump their garbage making the area unclean. They would then be calling the City to clean it up. Mr. Elliott stated it is not his intent to create a nuisance. He asked the Commission for favorable consent for a private ingress-egress easement with a perpetual maintenance agreement. Mr. Munir stated that the fence will be on the east side of the property. The pavement will be twelve feet wide. He wanted to know if the easement will remain twenty feet wide. (Page Five, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, March 15, 1977) Mr. Elliott stated the easement will remain twenty feet wide. The paved width will be twelve feet. There will be four open feet on each side of the pavement. The structural wall will be about eight to ten inches thick, so that it will be hard to destruct if someone backs into it. The open four feet on each side of the paved area cannot be built upon if it is designated ingress-egress. Mr. Johnson asked what minimum width would be required to maintain two-way traffic. Mr. Bullard stated that for two cars to actually pass with a four inch clearance on each side, a minimum distance of sixteen and one-half feet would be required. Mr. Adams inquired why the City is recommending two way traffic on a twelve foot area. Mr. Bullard replied that the purpose is for the convenience of the homeowners. He feels that the two-way traffic could be served because the second car could pause in a driveway to allow another car to pass. The traffic flow would not be heavy enough to cause a problem. Chairman Tyson asked if the City can enforce a one-way on a private ingress-egress easement. Mr. Bullard said he would have to leave that question up to the City attorney. Mr. Adams stated the City could be granted authority to enforce the one-way designation and also enforce the maintenance upkeep requirement if included in the perpetual maintenance agreement. Mr. Fuller asked where the visitors will park. There will not be any room in the alley. Mr. Elliott stated that at the current time parking is allowed on North Main. If this is changed in the future, guests will have to park on a side street and walk. Mr. Bullard restated the City' s desire for it to be designated a private ingress-egress two-way easement. Mr. Elliott discussed item number three of Mr. Lynch' s letter concerning the storm drainage system which must cross HEB School property. Mr. Elliott submitted a letter to the Commission, written by him and addressed to the HEB Independent School District. A copy of that letter is attached to these minutes. Mr. Elliottstated that he has provided the HEB school officials with a breakdown of their pro rata share provided they decide to go ahead and develop their portion of the Ash Lane extension. The cost of the Royce Noble portion of the development has been submitted for their consideration. He stated that the school system has a choice (Page Six, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, March 15, 1977) of doing nothing or putting in their portion for the street development. The other owner would be encouraged to put in his portion of the street develop- ment provided the school district wants it developed. Mr. Elliott stated a meeting with school officials is planned for March 17, 1977, to discuss the request to dig a drainage ditch on school property to drain water to the North. He sees no problem with getting the HEB School District to grant permission for the ditch. Mr. Bullard stated that he sees no prob- lem with the school district either. He pointed out that development cannot be done without the planned storm drainage system. Mr. Elliott concluded his remarks by requesting that the Commission approve the preliminary and final plats for Phase I , the ingress-egress two-way or one-way easement with a perpetual maintenance agreement, and that approval is subject to favorable agreement from Arco and the HEB Independent School District on items one and three of Mr. Lynch' s letter. Chairman Tyson directed attention to the April 15, 1975, minutes to the motion that was made to approve the rezoning request from "R-1" to "PD" subject to a revised plan that there be no entrances on North Main Street to Lots 1-10; that five lots will be built upon in Phase I ; that Lots 1-10 have a minimum of 2,000 square feet per dwelling; and that at the final platting, a development schedule is to be submitted subject to approval . He requested a development schedule from Mr. Elliott. Mr. Elliott stated he would give a verbal development schedule. When favorable approval is granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and favorable approval is granted by the City Council , and favorable response is granted by Arco and the HEB Independent School District, bids will be taken for the public improvements. Bidding procedures should take a week or two weeks. He estimated a permit will be taken out and money escrowed for public improvements within a month after the approvals are made. Chairman Tyson asked when Phase II would begin. Mr. Elliott said he could not give a date on Phase II . Phase I consists of 16 lots and 230 apartments. He expects Phase II to begin as soon as Phase I is completed. Plans for Phase II will probably come before the Commission in six months to a year. Mr. Adams made a motion to approve the preliminary and final plat of Oakwood Acres Estates subject to favorable approval of items one and three of the Staff ' s recommendations, and that the plat be amended from having an alley to having a twenty foot private ingress-egress easement with a perpetual maintenance agreement giving the City authority to enforce the agreement, and that the private ingress-egress easement be one way running south to north, and that the City be granted (Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, March 15, 1977) authority to enforce the one-way designation, and that there be a twelve foot wide, six inch thick concrete slab centered in that twenty foot private ingress-egress easement to meet City specifications approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Fuller seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Fuller, Adams, Tyson, Johnson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. Chairman Tyson brought up the idea of deed restrictions to limit the size of the houses to a minimum size of 2,000 square feet. Mr. Adams amended his motion to require the developer of Lots 1-10 of Block 2 to submit private deed restrictions to limit the houses to a minimum size of 2,000 square feet and a copy of the deed restrictions be submitted to the City. Mr. Fuller seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Fuller, Adams, Tyson, Johnson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. II . APPROVAL OF CITY ATTORNEY' S DEFINITIONS FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 7-1002 (1) , (2) , (3) , (4) , & (5) OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE Mr. Bullard stated that Mr. Holloway, of the law firm Cribbs, McFarland, Holman, and Holloway, prepared the definitions. A copy of those definitions is attached to these minutes. Mr. Adams stated that the language of definition two and five is from the Supreme Court giving it legal value. Mr. Bullard asked if definition one would affect the swimming pool lifeguards. After discussion, Mr. Fuller made a motion to approve the five definitions, with the exception that definition one be amended with the following phrase added to the end of the existing sentence - "except male employees at a public or private swimming establishment." (Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission, March 15, 1977) Mr. Johnson seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Fuller, Adams, Tyson, Johnson, Munir, and Mrs. Lightbody. Nays: None Chairman Tyson declared the motion carried. III . COMMISSION REQUEST FOR A COPY OF MR. RICK BARNES RESUME Chairman Tyson inquired about Mr. Rick Barnes. Mr. Bullard stated that Mr. Barnes is the new Director of Planning and Development for the City of Euless. He will probably start meeting with the Commission at the next regular meeting. Mr. Johnson requested that a copy of Mr. Barnes' resume be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review. IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjournec at 9:35 p.m. APPROVED